DeepMemory: Model-based Memorization Analysis of Deep Neural Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural network model is having a significant impact on many real-world applications. Unfortunately, the increasing popularity and complexity of these models also amplifies their security and privacy challenges, with privacy leakage from training data being one of the most prominent issues. In this context, prior studies proposed to analyze the abstraction behavior of neural network models, e.g., RNN, to understand their robustness. However, the existing research rarely addresses privacy breaches caused by memorization in neural language models. To fill this gap, we propose a novel approach, DeepMemory, that analyzes memorization behavior for a neural language model. We first construct a memorization-analysis-oriented model, taking both training data and a neural language model as input. We then build a semantic first-order Markov model to bind the constructed memorization-analysis-oriented model to the training data to analyze memorization distribution. Finally, we apply our approach to address data leakage issues associated with memorization and to assist in dememorization. We evaluate our approach on one of the most popular neural language models, the LSTM-based language model, with three public datasets, namely, WikiText-103, WMT2017, and IWSLT2016. We find that sentences in the studied datasets with low perplexity are more likely to be memorized. Our approach achieves an average AUC of 0.73 in automatically identifying data leakage issues during assessment. We also show that with the assistance of DeepMemory, data breaches due to memorization of neural language models can be successfully mitigated by mutating training data without reducing the performance of neural language models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".